←back to thread

Skeptical of rewriting JavaScript tools in "faster" languages

(nolanlawson.com)
160 points todsacerdoti | 7 comments | 20 Oct 24 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
anyfoo ◴[20 Oct 24 21:54 UTC] No.41898802[source]▶
> I’ve written a lot of JavaScript. I like JavaScript. And more importantly, I’ve built up a set of skills in understanding, optimizing, and debugging JavaScript that I’m reluctant to give up on.

It's not that hard to do the same for a less terrible language. Choose something markedly different, i.e. a low level language like rust, and you will learn a lot in the process. More so because now you can see and understand the programming world from two different vantage points. Plus, it never hurts to understand what's going on on a lower level, without an interpreter and eco-system abstracting things away so much. This can then feed back into your skills and understanding of JS.

replies(4): >>41898815 #>>41898881 #>>41898940 #>>41899798 #
FridgeSeal ◴[20 Oct 24 21:56 UTC] No.41898815[source]▶
I swear some JS devs will go out of their way to avoid learning anything else, whilst simultaneously and breathlessly espousing that we rewrite everything else in JS.
replies(5): >>41898850 #>>41898856 #>>41898880 #>>41899015 #>>41902114 #
oneweekwonder ◴[20 Oct 24 22:03 UTC] No.41898850[source]▶
> Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript. - Jeff Atwood (2007)
replies(1): >>41904798 #
peutetre ◴[21 Oct 24 14:49 UTC] No.41904798[source]▶
The game is changing with WebAssembly though. Large JavaScript applications are replacing JavaScript bits with wasm:

https://web.dev/case-studies/google-sheets-wasmgc

Any application that is written in JavaScript will have more and more of it replaced with WebAssembly.

replies(1): >>41911787 #
wiseowise ◴[22 Oct 24 06:39 UTC] No.41911787[source]▶
> Any application that is written in JavaScript will have more and more of it replaced with WebAssembly.

Which is not a lot when it comes to web. Sure some algo heavy stuff like Figma will benefit from it, but GUI around it is still written in what?

replies(1): >>41911883 #
1. peutetre ◴[22 Oct 24 07:01 UTC] No.41911883{3}[source]▶
Just do the whole thing in WebAssembly. Minimal dependencies and pixel perfect in all browsers. The distinction is applications versus documents.

Works for Dart with Flutter:

https://flutter.dev/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkjc9r0WDNo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx42r29HhcM

https://wonderous.app/web/

Works for C# with Avalonia UI:

https://avaloniaui.net/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mwQDPlbF5Y

https://solitaire.xaml.live/

And so on.

replies(1): >>41912059 #
2. wiseowise ◴[22 Oct 24 07:37 UTC] No.41912059[source]▶
Amazing, just awesome. Long standing applause.

Let’s regress to level of native apps without benefits of said native apps. No standardization, no performance, no unified integration. Let’s get rid of browser plugins that allow us to fight invasive ads and malicious JS scripts, let’s dump decades of expertise and optimizations, let’s undo all advancements of web just to be able to write same old <div> in C#. Nothing better than a single blob of <canvas>.

It’s ironic that some of people in this thread convict JS devs of using only JS and then you use those “frameworks” as an example of a good thing when they don’t even have a separation of presentation (like HTML and JS) that would allow other languages tap into it.

And all of this is with much worse performance and stability.*

* - for now

replies(1): >>41912316 #
3. peutetre ◴[22 Oct 24 08:29 UTC] No.41912316[source]▶
> No standardization, no performance, no unified integration.

WebAssembly has all of these things. WebAssembly already there, lurking your browser. That's why it will succeed.

It's interesting how threatened you are by WebAssembly. But change is normal. Embrace the change.

replies(1): >>41912390 #
4. wiseowise ◴[22 Oct 24 08:46 UTC] No.41912390{3}[source]▶
> WebAssembly has all of these things.

Is that why Flutter demo you’ve linked takes 7 seconds to load on Firefox on iPhone 14 Pro and then barely works skipping frames?

I can’t even select text on the page, since it’s just a big canvas, lmao.

> WebAssembly has all of these things. WebAssembly already there, lurking your browser. That's why it will succeed.

You mean how every of those frameworks that you’ve listed have to reimplement a11y every team, since WASM is pure logic? How all of them have to reimplement OS shortcuts and OS integrations? Is that what you call “unified integration”?

> It's interesting how threatened you are by WebAssembly. But change is normal. Embrace the change.

Why did I even bother replying to you, sigh.

replies(1): >>41912484 #
5. peutetre ◴[22 Oct 24 09:03 UTC] No.41912484{4}[source]▶
Ah, so what you want is Uno. It uses WebAssembly and the DOM: https://platform.uno/

> Why did I even bother replying to you, sigh.

I think it's because you're overwrought. Don't fear WebAssembly.

replies(1): >>41912572 #
6. wiseowise ◴[22 Oct 24 09:19 UTC] No.41912572{5}[source]▶
That’s actually good. If only it didn’t use XAML, but I guess you have to appeal to C# devs.

> I think it's because you're overwrought. Don't fear WebAssembly.

Not sure what’s you deal with these comments, as I’m not even a JS dev by trade, but okay.

replies(1): >>41912599 #
7. peutetre ◴[22 Oct 24 09:23 UTC] No.41912599{6}[source]▶
I can only judge you by your actions. You have a lot of anxiety.